M-SHORAD Inc 4 Responses 24Mar2026.pdf

Question # Question USG Response

Would USG consider a project starting at

TRL 2?

We will consider all compelling technologies and capabilities that meet USG capability objectives and timelines as described in the RFI. It would be helpful for the vendor to describe the capability and lay out a realistic development timeline in their response.

Can the Government provide additional information regarding the concept and/or requirements for the Self-Loading Equipment Dock or SLED?

Additional information on the SLED concept is not available. For this RFI, the terms SLED and pallet are almost interchangeable. SLED will not require additional equipment to load/unload, while a pallet requires loading equipment. The USG desires a vehicle-agnostic system that can be placed onto light USG tactical vehicles. Solutions minimizing handling and minimizing needs for specialized equipment are desired.

Does the SLED exist or is it to be developed as part of MSHORAD Inc 4 procurement?

Specific SLED or pallet concepts for M- SHORAD Inc 4 are not defined. The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas industry can offer.

Can the Government clarify and prioritize which USG light tactical vehicles are desired for integration of palletized solutions?

No. The USG desires a vehicle-agnostic system.

Are offerors expected to provide an integrated sensor solution or is integration with existing C2 and/or IBCS sufficient?

Both approaches may be of interest to the USG. We encourage offerors to propose the solution they believe is the most effective.

When tradeoffs are required among transportability, organic sensing, effector capacity, endurance, and survivability, which operational use case should be treated as the primary design driver for candidate M-SHORAD Increment 4 solutions?

The USG is not designating a single operational use cases as the primary design driver. Offerors can provide a detailed analysis of the assumptions and tradeoffs they have made in the RFI response.

For a vehicle-agnostic SLED or pallet-based solution, what minimum functions must reside on the SLED itself to satisfy the requirement for independent operation, and what functions may rely on host-vehicle or network-provided services when available?

The USG encourages offerors to propose what they believe is the most effective solution related to host-vehicle or network-provided services when available. The solution should enable independent operation of the suite of Inc 4 capabilities.

Because the RFI states that proposed solutions are not required to simultaneously meet all desired characteristics due to SWaP limitations, does the Government prefer a common baseline SLED architecture with mission-tailorable sensor and effector configurations, or a single baseline configuration intended to satisfy the broadest possible set of use cases on every vehicle?

The USG does not have a preference. We will consider all solutions that deliver all M- SHORAD Inc 4 capabilities as described in the RFI.

In evaluating modularity and reconfigurability, will the Government consider a family-of-configurations approach in which common SLED architecture supports different mission-tailored loadouts across different host vehicle types and mission sets? Yes

With respect to MOSA, reconfigurability, right-to-repair, and affordability objectives, should respondents assume that the Government priority is rights to the system-level integration framework, interfaces, and reconfiguration mechanisms, or rights extending into each subsystem element?

The USG requires intellectual property and data rights that enable the USG to affordably reconfigure and evolve the system as the mission and threat dictate.

The rights must enable the USG to upgrade the system with emerging technology and subsystems. The USG must possess the right to repair the system. The USG desires minimum rights assertions.

For interoperability with IBCS-Maneuver and/or other compatible command-and-control systems, what level of integration should respondents assume for the initial capability timeframe: local fire control with external cueing, coordinated engagement through C2, or full engagement authority through the external C2 framework?

The offerors should propose what their solution can realistically achieve by the FY27-29 timeframe and provide a clear justification for their approach.

To what extent will the Government consider distributed sensing and engagement architectures in which useful independent operation is retained at the SLED level, but performance is enhanced through networked cueing and mixed mission configurations across a formation?

The USG will consider distributed sensing and engagement architectures that deliver the capabilities described in the RFI.

For the FY27–29 timeframe, how does the Government intend to balance near-term fieldable capability using high-TRL components against longer-term capacity growth and production scaling?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer to meet objectives in the timeframe specified in the RFI.

When SWaP constraints require tradeoffs, how does the Government prioritize high-confidence target discrimination and engagement quality relative to maximum organic effector capacity on a single

SLED?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer.

Offerors can provide a detailed analysis of the tradeoffs they have made in the RFI response.

What is the range of vehicles desired to host an MSHORAD system; ISV, JLTV, FMTV, Stryker, etc?

The USG desires vehicle-agnostic SLED-or pallet-based systems that can be placed onto light USG tactical vehicles.

Does the government envision unmanned ground vehicles as part of MSHORAD Inc4

- if yes, where is the human layer that supervises them; ATAK/Netwarrior (i.e.

closest soldier to the system) or IBCS- Maneuver (i.e.. closest Air Defender), or both?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer. There are not specific unmanned vehicle requirements or concepts defined at this time.

What specific airdrop requirements does the USG desire offered solutions to support

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer.

– i.e. is there a possibility to airdrop only a SLED with a payload thereon, or is the intended airdrop of a SLED/payload going to always include a host platform?

Assumptions and trade-off analysis can be included in the RFI response.

When using a system intended to be employed independent of a host platform (dismount), will the USG consider solutions that require partial payload disassembly/reassembly as elements of related positioning and employment TTPs?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer.

Minimum disassembly/assembly is desired.

What are the objective and threshold time periods to reconfigure/assemble/disassemble the SLED from a host platform, or effectors from the SLED, or a combination thereof?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer.

Minimum reconfigure/disassemble/assemble timeline is desired.

In a dismounted configuration use case, is the SLED/payload intended to be typically employed on prepared terrain, or should offered solutions support employment from rough/unimproved battlefield terrain?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer. The most flexible employment solution is desired.

1. Does the cover page count toward the overall page limit? 1a. If we include the business information (Part A of the solicitation) on the cover page rather than in the main body of the response, will the cover page then count toward the 15 page limit? 1. No 1a. No

2. Is a DUNS Number still required, or is our UEI sufficient for this submission?

a. Our understanding is that DUNS Numbers are no longer used as of 2022.

Please confirm. UEI is sufficient.

3. Will submissions that contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) be accepted?

a. If so, could you please provide the approved method or system for securely submitting such information? Acceptable. Submit via DoD SAFE link.

5-seater ISV-U is assumed to be the only ISV configuration. Please confirm.

The USG desires a vehicle-agnostic system.

Is SLED and palletized version expected to be two different configurations?

What’s the difference in SLED vs palletized requirements?

Additional information on the SLED concept is not available. For this RFI, the terms SLED and pallet are almost interchangeable. SLED will not require additional equipment to load/unload, while a pallet requires loading equipment. The USG desires a vehicle-agnostic system that can be placed onto light USG tactical vehicles. Solutions minimizing handling and minimizing needs for specialized equipment are desired.

Is “SLED” expected to be a person lift, and if so, how many people?

This is not expected. Minimum personnel to operate is desired

Can you specify CONOPS of using the “SLED”?Does CONOPS include

Additional information on the SLED concept is not available. For this RFI, the transporting vehicle mounted solutions to field, removing from vehicle, and leaving?How long is SLED expected to operate on Standby?

terms SLED and pallet are almost interchangeable. SLED will not require additional equipment to load/unload, while a pallet requires loading equipment. The USG desires a vehicle-agnostic system that can be placed onto light USG tactical vehicles. Solutions minimizing handling and minimizing needs for specialized equipment are desired.

What is the expected TRL of the system in 2027, 2028 and 2029?

The offerors solution must be sufficiently mature to meet requirements for fielding in the timeline described in the RFI.

What are the priorities of the baseline components required for all configurations (Obj 3)?

The USG is not designating priorities of the baseline components required for all configurations. Offerors can provide a detailed analysis of the tradeoffs they have made in the RFI response.

What are the smallest and largest vehicles that this will be used on?

Largest: ISV-U Autonomous Vehicles Which RCV is of primary interest?

ACFT Transportability: For the standard 463L pallet, what is the priority of the various effectors & sensors?

The USG desires a vehicle-agnostic system. The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer. Assumptions and trade-off analysis can be included in the RFI response.

31 Is a ISV towable/trailer option acceptable?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer. In general, a towable/trailer option is not desired.

Is less than 360deg field of fire around the vehicle acceptable?

The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer. The most flexible employment solution is desired.

What is the general timeline from RFI drop to RPP/RFP?

TBD. This RFI is for information and planning purposes only.

Will there be an industry day? If so, when will that be?

TBD. This RFI is for information and planning purposes only.

What is the initial fielding plan for Increment 4?

TBD. This RFI is for information and planning purposes only.

36 What units will receive this platform?

TBD. This RFI is for information and planning purposes only.

37 How many platforms are required per unit?

This will vary depending on the proposed solution. The USG is interested in understanding the number of platforms required to deliver the desired capability.

Is the base vehicle that M-SHORAD Increment 4 needs to be hosted on the GM Defense ISV-U (4-5 seater version)? Is the defensive fires community working with PAE Maneuver (Ground) to get the ISV-U (2-seater) added to the inventory?

The USG desires a vehicle-agnostic system. The USG is interested in understanding all potential ideas the industry can offer. Assumptions and trade-off analysis can be included in the RFI response.